Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
The law as regards cyclists, and general approach to such matters is decades behind on Oz. Mind you, sometimes it can be little different here.
Indian Pacific Wheel Race
- Thread starter dim
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
D
Deleted member 1258
Guest
I find its strange that they mention his clothing but not whether he was using lights or not.
lazybloke
Ginger biscuits and cheddar
- Location
- Leafy Surrey
Not impressed by driver statements such as surprise at seeing a cyclist on that road. Oh that's okay then, feel free to drive carelessly.
deptfordmarmoset
Full time tea drinker
- Location
- Armonmy Way
I gather part of Bobby's testimony was that he actually wasn't looking where he was going. By the time his eyes returned to the road from what was distracting him, it was too late. So, cyclist's fault, obviously....
raleighnut
Legendary Member
- Location
- One of the 'Elite'
What a bunch of f**ktards, the car (driven by a half asleep youth( hit a well lit cyclist.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
And now there's one on here about the inquest and it's reporting.
raleighnut
Legendary Member
- Location
- One of the 'Elite'
Maybe they could be merged?
Slick
Guru
You really couldn't make this stuff up.What a bunch of f**ktards, the car (driven by a half asleep youth( hit a well lit cyclist.
- Location
- Glasgow
On it, once I find the other one
Slick
Guru
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/indian-pacific-wheel-race.211934/post-5392918On it, once I find the other one
- Location
- Glasgow
Threads now merged.
steveindenmark
Legendary Member
I have been following this in several places. I have a great respect for what Mike achieved but would not take that he was totally in the right on face value. But having read everything I have read from many places, it appears that Mike did everything right and had no blame in this accident.
My first question would have been to the senoir constable in charge of the investigation and that would have been "How many fatal road traffic accidents have you dealt with?" Taking what we know as a whole, the investigation looks shambolic. He did not sieze the drivers mobile phone for tests and I would have thought that was a matter of procedure. He did ascertain that the phone had not been used for sending messages or phone calls before, or at the time of the accident. But the phone was not searched for other data. He could have been using the phone for many other things. The Senior constable admitted at the inquest that this was an error and it should have been confiscated and checked.
The Senior Constable said that the lights on the car were "Below the normal standard". But were not tested as he did not know what the normal standard was. During several interviews the driver changed what distance he could see from 15 metres to half a football field. The discrepancies were never investigated. The driver also changed his mind about if there were other vehicles in the area. The area is well known for kangaroos getting hit and a question I would have asked is if there were no other vehicles in the area, why was the driver not on full beam. The driver admitted he was distractacted and when he looked forward again Mike was right in front of him. What was distracting him at that time of the morning?
I believe there were 7 car driver witnesses who saw Mike about the time of the accident. One of them rang Crimestoppers 2 days after the accident. But was not contacted by the police for 4 months. The car drivers accounts range from Mike to being very visible to being almost invisible and not wearing a helmet.
An "Expert" on Australian roads was called who answered "I am not an expert in this field" to all the questions. He admitted at inquest that he had no idea why he was called.
What is not in dispute was that Mike was in the part of the road he should have been in. He was riding straight and not swerving.
As they say. "Dont believe all you read in the papers". But if any of the above is true. It must surely bring into doubt the thoroughness and professionalism of the police enquiry.
To date. The driver has not been charged with any offences and that will make any compensation claim difficult.
Unless the inquest papers are made public. All of the above has to be taken with a pinch of salt.
My first question would have been to the senoir constable in charge of the investigation and that would have been "How many fatal road traffic accidents have you dealt with?" Taking what we know as a whole, the investigation looks shambolic. He did not sieze the drivers mobile phone for tests and I would have thought that was a matter of procedure. He did ascertain that the phone had not been used for sending messages or phone calls before, or at the time of the accident. But the phone was not searched for other data. He could have been using the phone for many other things. The Senior constable admitted at the inquest that this was an error and it should have been confiscated and checked.
The Senior Constable said that the lights on the car were "Below the normal standard". But were not tested as he did not know what the normal standard was. During several interviews the driver changed what distance he could see from 15 metres to half a football field. The discrepancies were never investigated. The driver also changed his mind about if there were other vehicles in the area. The area is well known for kangaroos getting hit and a question I would have asked is if there were no other vehicles in the area, why was the driver not on full beam. The driver admitted he was distractacted and when he looked forward again Mike was right in front of him. What was distracting him at that time of the morning?
I believe there were 7 car driver witnesses who saw Mike about the time of the accident. One of them rang Crimestoppers 2 days after the accident. But was not contacted by the police for 4 months. The car drivers accounts range from Mike to being very visible to being almost invisible and not wearing a helmet.
An "Expert" on Australian roads was called who answered "I am not an expert in this field" to all the questions. He admitted at inquest that he had no idea why he was called.
What is not in dispute was that Mike was in the part of the road he should have been in. He was riding straight and not swerving.
As they say. "Dont believe all you read in the papers". But if any of the above is true. It must surely bring into doubt the thoroughness and professionalism of the police enquiry.
To date. The driver has not been charged with any offences and that will make any compensation claim difficult.
Unless the inquest papers are made public. All of the above has to be taken with a pinch of salt.
